Creationists, what lines of evidence would you prefer to demonstrate evolution?

They prefer to believe the nonsense that they find in idiotic, lying creationist web sites and books instead of looking for the real, well-documented answers that science has provided.

As is well demonstrated by @A Yahoo! user.

I will take one example.

>>"We have the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy), and we have the second law of thermodynamics, that everything is running down. Things are going from order to disorder. And yet, the theory of evolution is based on the opposite. That things are going from simple to complex."

The laws of thermodynamics deal strictly with the dynamics of energy. (Thermo = heat.)

So here are the first two Laws of Thermodynamics stated.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but may change from one form to another.

The Second Law states that, in a closed system, there can be no net increase in available energy and that any process that occurs in a closed system will result in less available energy (the degree of the non-availability of energy in a system is called entropy).

Another way of looking at it is that any increase in order--or for that matter, any process occurring--in a closed system must be balanced out by a corresponding decrease in available energy. Since the earth is not a closed system, but gets energy from the sun and that energy drives processes on the earth, including biological processes, any increase in entropy is balanced out.

Here is the mathematical expression of the Second Law.

Delta Q <= T Delta S

Where Delta Q = the change in heat (change in available energy), T = temperature (stated as degrees above absolute zero), and Delta S = change in entropy (non-availability of energy).

Or, solving it for entropy:

Delta S >= Delta Q / T

What the Second Law prohibits is perpetual motion machines; that is, a machine that produces energy with no energy input.

Since the laws of thermodynamics deal strictly with the dynamics of energy, evolution does not violate the Second Law. As long as energy is available, evolution can occur just as any other natural process can occur.

One might think that the Second Law is violated by evolution because of the use of the term "disorder" that is sometimes used instead of "entropy" in referring to the Second Law. That usage can cause confusion and misapplication of the law.

However, in scientific usage, terms have specific meanings. In thermodynamic systems, "order" and "disorder" refer to the ordering of energy in the system. A system with high order means that there is a large amount of usable energy compared with unusable energy so that energy can flow and processes can occur. A system with high disorder means that there is more unusable energy compared with usable energy so that little or no energy can flow for processes to occur.

The rest of @A Yahoo! user's arguments are just as ignorant.

Added

Whoops! A thumbs down by a hater of reality (i.e., a creationist).

Let's be clear. Science is supported by conducting experiments and making observations. Since you were not around at the time, and no one was around, this is not something you or anyone else observed. So when you talk about what happened a billion years ago, you must understand this is born out of someone's imagination, and not based on observations or any other scientific experiments. It's like a fairy tale.

But think about it. We have the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy), and we have the second law of thermodynamics, that everything is running down. Things are going from order to disorder. And yet, the theory of evolution is based on the opposite. That things are going from simple to complex. This doesn't make sense. I say, let's stay scientific.

And another thing, as we learn more about the most simple things, like single cells, we find they are far more complex than we ever imagined. And we have the problem of non-irreducible complexity. That is, when you start taking away some of the contents of a single cell, it doesn't work anymore. Thus there is no way this could "evolve." It's like, if half of your car engine was gone, including the fuel injection system for example, your car engine would not run. Darwin did not know anything about DNA when he developed his theory, and he did not know anything about the non-irreducible complexity of a single cell.

And another thing, how would you explain MALE and FEMALE. How could two same but different organisms just come into existence out of nothing. And at the same time? And why do we need males and females? Why would this evolve this way? It doesn't make sense. Clearly, this was someone's DESIGN.

And can you explain where the SEEDS came from? Think about all the different kinds of trees and plants, and they all come from seeds. Who designed these seeds? Who determined that some plants are big and some are small? Who designed the flowers? How can anyone look at all the different varieties of plants and flowers, and not see that someone DESIGNED all of these things?

And what came first, the bees or the flowers? Or did they just both magically "evolve" at the same time? How did one exist without the other? Is it possible that both bees and flowers were DESIGNED by the same designer?

We now know all about DNA, which is an entirely digital code found in each cell. Plants and animals all have this digital code. Someone wrote this code, like a master programmer. This code could not have just happened. That would be as ridiculous as saying "Windows-XP" just evolved out of nothing. What? No, a team of programmers wrote the code for Microsoft Windows. Do you realize that every cell in our bodies contain this DNA code? Who was the author or programmer? Again, the second law of thermodynamics means everything is running down from order to disorder. So this didn't just "happen."

Someone created the universe from the biggest things down to the smallest things. And His fingerprints are all over His creation. His creation is all based on INFORMATION. Without this information, or DNA, there would be no living things.

We have two choices. We can either accept that God created the universe, and everything in it, or we can make up some other theory. The reason people make up some other theory is because they do not want to believe in God.

A Yahoo, you are only making 1/2 truths and may not realize it which is why you are missing the point.

----But think about it. We have the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy), and we ----have the second law of thermodynamics, that everything is running down. Things are going from ----order to disorder. And yet, the theory of evolution is based on the opposite. That things are going ----from simple to complex. This doesn't make sense. I say, let's stay scientific.

Missed 2 key points. 1st law is for a closed system. Whats your closed system? It looks like you are speaking gentically, if so, 1st law doesn't apply in the manner you think. Energy = heat gen + work. The genetic material get energy freely from the cell its in, which gets it energy from some where else, which at some point was being fed by something, etc. So, everything alive has energy because it consumes on some scale other things. If it doesn't, the living thing dies and its genetic code is now lost, naturally selected to die due to poor genetic coding.

2nd, 2nd law is for unpowered systems, something not in thermal equilibrium. DNA, when unpowered will fall apart in 500 someodd years due to 2nd law, and then in a something like 10^31 years into just its sub atomics due to 2nd law. Living cells generate heat due to law 1, so they are above thermal equilibrium, do not fall apart.

--And another thing, as we learn more about the most simple things, like single cells, we find they --are far more complex than we ever imagined. And we have the problem of non-irreducible --complexity. That is, when you start taking away some of the contents of a single cell, it doesn't --work anymore. Thus there is no way this could "evolve." It's like, if half of your car engine was --gone, including the fuel injection system for example, your car engine would not run. Darwin did --not know anything about DNA when he developed his theory, and he did not know anything about --the non-irreducible complexity of a single cell.

This has been covered before and is an old argument and it was disproved.

''The long-term evolution experiments using E. coli, begun by Richard Lenski in 1988, have allowed direct observation of major evolutionary shifts in the laboratory.[60] In this experiment, one population of E. coli unexpectedly evolved the ability to aerobically metabolize citrate, which is extremely rare in E. coli. As the inability to grow aerobically is normally used as a diagnostic criterion with which to differentiate E. coli from other, closely related bacteria, such as Salmonella, this innovation may mark a speciation event observed in the lab.'" [60] Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab, New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacter...

None which prove macro-evolution. Micro-evolution isn't Macro-Evolution, that is changes within animal kind never leads to a new animal.

You don't even know the difference between Micro and Marco Evolution and you post your statement.

FYI all those you list the only one that follows "Evolution" that you are thinking is naturalistic biology, and the entire idea of "Evolution" isn't even scientific and has zero facts.

Seriously your statement is typical of the ignorance running rampant today.

Those are some mighty big words you use. I can't say I'm familiar with most of them. What I do know is simple logic as explained in the videos at the links below. You should watch them. The presenter is a Ph.D in zoology who once taught evolution at the university level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynh-zHKfm1I (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD2eop3BewU (Part 2)

This one too ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XK02sHaW18

How about revelation! You seem to be predicating your denial of God on the lack of references to evolution in the Bible. Islamic scholars as Al Jahiz and Ibn Khaldoun proposed evolution in the 9th and the 14th Centuries respectively, with many other Islamic scholars in agreement. Evolution was taught as part of the Islamic curriculum. The fact of evolution is based on the following revelations in the Quran:

The Big Bang theory closely parallels the Quran’s assertion that the universe was once a single unit:

(Al Anbiya) 021.030 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

The waters then began to produce life, which resulted in the evolution of life; plants, animals and man according to the following verses in Suras An Noor and Al Furqan:

(An Noor) 024.045 And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things.

(Al Furqan) 025.054 It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things).

Allah (swt) goes on to explain that man was created from a mixture of earth and water or clay:

(Al Muminoorn) 023.012 Man We did create from a quintessence of clay;

It is very important to point out that Allah (swt) stresses that He created human beings from a quintessence of clay or the water and the minerals from which clay is composed. According to scientists as Haldane and Cairns-Smith, clay was critical to prebiotic evolution. Clay minerals seem to have played a vital role in the manufacture of large prebiotic molecules – their lattice structures acting as templates for the organization of organic matter into polymers. The clay or mud from which man was created was black mud altered or formed:

(Al Hijr) 015:26 Verily We created man of sounding clay of black mud altered.

Allah (swt) emphasizes that not only was man formed from water and the minerals contained in clay, but that the clay was black. The current theory of man’s evolution has his origins in the African continent. The above verse emphasizes that early man was dark skinned which is consistent with current theories of man’s African origins. Allah (swt) says that he created man in stages. He further states that this creation took place over a long period of time:

(Nooh) 071.014 Seeing that it is He that has created you in stages.

(Ad Dahr) 076.001 Has there not been over Man a long period of Time, when he was nothing – (not even) mentioned?

There is more in the article: Islam & Theistic Evolution.

What you just did is called "Elephant Hurling." The thing is, we have answers to each of those and they all fit just fine within the creation worldview.

http://www.creation.com/

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.trueorigin.org/

The evidence for evolution is circumstantial actually. It can be interpreted in more than one way.

Fireside stories from Illiterate hebrew nomads that lived 4000 years ago that had not invented the wheel yet.

And you cannot get any better proof than that.